Welcome to the League of Fraudulently Displaced HomeownersTHIS IS A STAND!

Just because these issues seem complex and difficult to understand, does not mean they should not be heard.. besides the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: states“**every finaljudgmentshall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.

REMEMBER - Officers of the court who many come in contact with the matter of Goodner versus Disaster Services are noticed under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoffv. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).

In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. This site is designed to help show you how to stand…

WARNING about the Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. ruling only use it after a foreclosure, if you use it before a home foreclosures, they can prejudice you from filing a wrongful foreclosure afterwards..

This is an ORIGINAL SOURCE ANNOUNCEMENT For more free information visit We the Plaintiffs Faith is a member of several advocacy groups dedicated to uncovering mortgage crimes. You have a tax matter claim. The courts can't interfere with the government claim yet they are actually awarding abandonment claims to the bank upon a judicial lien.

As your servicer this simple question…. Who is the foreclosing beneficiary? I will need to have them submit the estimated tax liability as required by law to show to my accountant. The won't and they can't because it violates the abandonment claim upon the 1099-A or 1099-C they are planning to issue you if they do… Press this… Hard as these are TAX MATTER ISSUES!If you think the "Big Short" was useful, then you are going to love this. As I can ONLY use my own personal case study on this site, I am going to brief each and every one of you on what you will be needing to go research on your own files…. This is a Demand_RESPA Notice for you to take and apply to your own situation…

I was told by a federal BK judge that this information does not require a seal, not sure she fully understands what she just did, but hey who am I to argue a freedom of info pass… therefore I am just sharing the inside whistleblower love. This judge BTW threatened to have me removed from the courtroom if I did not shut up… This is next to impossible to plead, it is a tax matter issue and I have not seen anything that came closer.

This along with my Declairation of Faith II - Collotorization explains in detail how loans across this nation under these pass through Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMIC’s) are nothing more than a freehold interest in a fee simple estate that bypassed actual securitization, which turned YOU into the holder in reversionary rights to your property.My Personal file notes notes break down the IRS tax evasion process that has been taking place over the years, and my declarations break down the collatoralization process through personal example. With the release of that movie “the big short” which is ridiculous, but hey it is raising awareness, I feel safe enough to pass this along now… It is what I have been holding on to for a very long time.

Now actually LOOK at your Notice of Default. Brashear NOD 12:22:2014In my case they are actually pricing off my Notice on Wall street - there are embedded codings within this Notice. When all these loans were abandoned during the great crash, Regulations (REG-136676-13) were issued concerning the 36-month non-payment testing period. This is a period of time where the banks were NOT allowed to talk with you and somehow you were supposed to magically be aware of the memo that was issued to give you time to come forward to state your claims. Ok now LOOK at this Notice, it is a complete and utter joke.

Look at the verbiage "Installment of Principal and interest which became due". If you have this verbiage motion for a more definitive statement. The can not recognize something they already sold. This is called theft. Non recognition assets… under 1122 AB what is the difference between a mortgage sale and an.. installment sale? They are not allowed to identify the mortgage this is FAS 140. If you are going to get a 1099 you need to know who the party is that is issuing the 1099. The party is going to issue the 1099 is the foreclosing beneficiary….. compel them to answer to you "who is the lender" Without the 1099 they cannot reconstitute the salvage value of your home…

Think of it like this. Pretend your "mortgage" is actually two tickets to the Super Bowl. You claim you sold those tickets to and made $1000 profit under which, as a law abiding citizen, you tell the IRS guys… I earned income to the IRS. The IRS could care less about what form income is earned so they say whoo hoo -slam bam thank you ma'am…Now you in turn go use those tickets to watch the game and your bad luck - the IRS agent and the person who allegedly bought that ticket are there asking you how you are using those seats…

Think of the back end of this swap out of bad assets, like this… You buy a jet plane for $250k as business expense and claim you sold the plane to the IRS for $25k, IRS says you took a loss… Think is your are stupid enough to land your plane in front of IRS headquarters… and the person you allegedly sold it to, is asking for the keys… sucks to be the banks if you know your actual rights.

This Notice of Defaults states the certificate holders of an already swapped out REMIC - meaning Bank of America is now moving their bad assets off the table and are conducting foreclosures upon their non performing assets already foreclosed upon. You CANNOT FORECLOSE TWICE which is why they cannot recognize something that they have ALREADY SOLD. Not only that SLS is stating they are the servicer of the installment loan. You cannot service a loan that is an installment sale for a swap of other assets.

The recorded Deed of trust actually encodes risk factors into what looks like simple numbers when you break it out, they are actually countdowns and IRC codes. They actually targeted me up front under 11 U.S. Code § 727 - Discharge as a Bankruptcy risk and The Note was both codified and satisfied as COD Income under Sec 61 (a) (1) and sec 121 for like kind exchanges under Sec 1.1031 and wash sale provisions under Sections 1.1091 up front. They hold a 10 year bond against a freehold interest for the use of the estate NOT the land….

A Mortgage is NOT an installment contract. An installment is a Deed of Conveyance NOT a Deed of Trust, it is a freehold interest in a fee simple estate. This NOD states I am actually a creditor. The HUD one shows the tandem funding against the net advance which you can see by this notice, went to HSBC and now Dueutsche bank (the beneficiary of the certificates holders) who is the undisclosed foreclosing Beneficiary. This means they are trying to enforce a mortgage that was intended to be an installment sale. An installment sale means they do NOT HOLD TITLE. YOU CAN NOT FORECLOSE IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE. This is material gross negligence and SERIOUS errors and omissions here. These entities are actually trying, after swapping out the instrument into another investment conduit (This REMIC was terminated in 2008 on the SEC because it was swapped out). Why, because the banks are pulling forward their junk non-performing assets and pawning them off on you for failure to state your claim in reversionary rights to your own property.

There is no interest in an installment sale and you cannot bring up a mortgage as there was never a mortgage to begin with…

Deutschbank owns the securities. The amount that went in to HSBC and the payoff to whom they gave certificates in exchange for money though they were bank certificates. BofA was dumping their 2002 Mergers bad assets in their conversion to Countrywide prior to the 2008 Mortgage crash, giving the demand holder non performing they swap my home out for bad bank assets. My HUD 1 shows I paid them off. At the end of the day, It all boils down to operation of law under 26 "The U.S. Code". This information is NOT based in legal theory it is operational law.

When a SPV (special purpose vehicle under a mortgage loan trust) is coming forth on behalf of the trustee of a mortgage loan trust (like in my case), it means that they are asserting the SPV is a negotiable instrument, which now means a person experiencing this (such as myself) would hold a duty to report them to the IRS for asserting that a SPV is a negotiable instrument. This is a legal impossibility because a Mortgage Loan Trust’s break real estate Mortgage investment conduits into three parts for tax exempt purposes as follows–

REMIC III constitutes Regular Interests of the assets of REMIC II and is considered the “Master” REMIC where the Master Servicer who is not the investor received mortgage payments from the lower level servicers who in turn pay interest derivatives to the certificate holders under REMIC I - (certificates were always attached to the rigged LIBOR index to control the payout to the investor)

REMIC stands for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit, and REMIC I is designated IRS Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) which falls under under IRS Code §860D as a special purpose vehicle ,once declared as such (as declared so in their P&S) retains that status permanently which means it can not act as both a security instrument AND a negotiable instrument.

In other words it is not designed to hold both the note and the deed together. So every time a BK court awards a relief of stay under presumed color of tile, they are confirming the claimant (aka the salvage attorney's many many clients under an alleged trustee) assertion that the classification REMIC under the mortgage loan trust is a negotiable instrument which would call into question the tax exempt status of the SPV under their Mortgage loan trusts where in their pooling and servicing agreements it states that ANY issues regarding the tax exempt status under IRS Code §860D must be settled under the IRC codes…. which in turn would call forth into question the entire value of the REMIC for additional IRS penalties. Good times!!! An opposing claim is brought in every case under a 12 (b) (6) motion and 30 days notice for order of entry for a judicial liens is used to reconstitute the 0.00 value back to the original notes basis within their internal accounting system. Evidence of this can usually be found in a multitude of places.

The simplest place to look is upon their fabricated deed of trust (not corporate deed to be legit) behind the scenes title assignments. When you see a servicer fabricating a deed, you will also see them transferring 100% beneficiary interests of MERS to themselves typically via a robo signer for no value consideration. Many of these fabricated deeds were done in 2011 - red flag as this was when MERS was under the OCC cease and desist order here as your exhibits references. PEOPLE PLEASE STOP ARGUING THE ULTRA VIRES FRAUDS, THERE IS NO MORTGAGE HERE…

A servicer is only supposed to service a loan, huge conflict here. These are typically followed by a Corporation Assignment to the swap out provider on behalf of the "Holders" of the classification REMIC. This does not actually put the deed into the trust else it would be reflected as such in its verbiage. I was actually told that common sense of the verbiage was actually legal theory, so don't expect the judge to use common sense when actually reading the verbiage… half of them do not understand this and the other half are being threatened.

On mine you can actually see the conflict of the Beneficiary transfer because MERS set forth a recession of the NOD an NTS in 2014 on behalf of CW which told HSBC to back off from foreclosing on their behalf. MERS is only there to act as a 1031 exchange conduit of sorts for their MERSCORP MEMBERS which makes their nominee status a temporary thing, it also witness the actual tandem funded net advance that moved in and out on page one of the Deed of Trust via the MERS Member Identification Number (MIN#) the first seven series id’s the originator of the pass through SPV conduit, the second series of number (should reflect the actually loan number upon the deed if it was their own Mortgage Trust used) reflects the tandem funded net advanced from the Collatorolized debt obligation… Thing is, they were stupid enough to show me who the undisclosed foreclosing Beneficiary actually is on this very document.

From there the indebtedness discharged is qualified for indebtedness (IRC § 108(a)(1)(C)), where the indebtedness discharged is qualified real property business indebtedness (IRC § 108(a)(1)(D)), or where the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal residence indebtedness which is discharged before January 1, 2013 (IRC § 108(a)(1)(E), the “2007 Mortgage Relief Act”).

There is no free lunch when it comes to exclusion of the COD. The“price” for exclusion occurs under IRC § 108(b) which requires that the taxpayer’s tax attributes be reduced by the amount of the income excluded. In many cases, IRC § 108 only defers payment of the tax on the COD income. The method by which the tax attributes are reduced differs under each subsection of IRC §108(a)(1). Only the exclusion of COD income resulting from a bankruptcy discharge will be discussed. In determining the amount of COD income, IRC § 108(e)(2) provides that “[n]o income shall be realized from the discharge of indebtedness to the extent that payment of the liability would have given rise to a deduction.”

For example where there is a foreclosure the amount of debt forgiveness does not include accrued but unpaid interest since the taxpayer could have deducted the interest if paid.

Likewise where a landlord forgives unpaid rent owed by a business debtor, this discharge would not be COD income since the taxpayercould have deducted the rent as a business expense if paid.

Once the amount of COD income is determined, IRC § 108(b)(2) requires the taxpayer to reduce tax attributes in the following order: (A) Net operating losses; (B) General business tax credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded); (C) Minimum tax credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded); (D) Capital losses; (E) Property basis; (F) Passive activity loss and credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded for the credits); and (G) Foreign tax credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded) .

The reduction in basis under IRC § 108(b)(2)(E) in a Title 11 case is governed under the provisions of IRC §1017(b)(2) which limits the reduction to the excess of the “(A) aggregate of the bases of the property held by the taxpayer immediately after the discharge, over (B) the aggregate of the liabilities of the taxpayer immediately after the discharge.”

Treasury Regulation 1.10171(b)(3) provides that aggregate liabilities must be reduced by the amount of any cash on hand. Treasury regulation 1.10171(a) prescribes the order in which the bases in the taxpayer’s property is reduced. Property where the tax attributes are reduced in the above order, is not limited to depreciable property but consists of all the property of the taxpayer.

The Note was satisfied as COD Income under Sec 61 (a) (1) and sec 121 for like kind exchanges under Sec 1.1031 and wash sale provisions under Sections 1.1091. Every 1099-A I have seen is for an amount due the home owner, that they homeowner failed to state in their claims. I have already lost two home to government declared illegal foreclosures, I have already been issued one 1099-A for alleged failure to state my claims and demand to buy my properties back at the zero’d out title value, and I am awaiting another 1099-A to hit my desk any day. For alleged failure under Rule 12(b)(6) FRCP at the federal court levels who are directing me back to state (where I hold a documented vested interest in the outcome of my case by a Superior court justice who reports over 10% ownership interest in the form of commission in a real estate company his wife works for, and through whom receives over 90% of their REO business from court cases- wife and I are actually on the same board of realtors)

All that really needs to happen here to fix this is to replace the loan through an Offer to Compromise OTC under CCP §998. based upon the IRS taxable interest against the current market value of the home, or 33.3%. with dismissal of “partnership” so that no 1099 would be issued, which would amicably resolve this and could legitimately be done by a restructure of the loan through a back door replacement loan.

These industry idiots cannot walk on their est. $9M CDO (collatoralized debt obligation) without a foreclosure and a modification won’t work for them or me either with the rolling out of the UCL foreclosure act which would call all modified loan immediately due and payable good standing or not.

Fictitious foreclosures violate accounting rules under their System, FAS 140 and codified SFAS 140.3. IRS IRC rules and to enable a foreclosure under false presumption of a Holder in Due Course would not be prudent as there exist evidence on title suggesting MERS is NOT the beneficiary. Further their nominee status is only good for 180 days.

Request for production of documents - FORM 8594 allegedly filed with the IRS under 26 U.S. Code § 860G - 3 (A) (ii) that shows the SPV purchased the asset.. as this is what you would need to show PRIOR to the SPV being swapped out (bulk refinanced) into another investment conduit, usually after a year. To assert that a SPV is a negotiable instrument they would need to recall the deed into the trust PRIOR to a classification REMIC swap out. As you can see from mine, they played train wreck on title 7 years after the fact…

Suspect you have a pass through loan? Here is how you spot the bypassing of securitization upon your loan. MERS violates § 1-202. Notice; Knowledge. (a) Subject to subsection (f), a person has "notice" of a fact if the person: (1) has actual knowledge of it; (2) has received a notice or notification of it; or (3) from all the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time in question, has reason to know that it exists. At no time did MERS disclose that the “lender” was using funds from investors on the credit of Warehouse lenders who took presales of certificates to fuel the MERS system.

Under UCC § 1-206. Presumptions. Whenever the Uniform Commercial Code creates a "presumption" with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is "presumed," the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence

Under § 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting". MERS as an electronic nominee beneficiary did not have the power to electronically transfer because the transferor aka the “lender” did not was not acting in the capacity of a “transferor”.

UCC § 2-503. Manner of Seller's Tender of Delivery 5) Where the contract requires the seller to deliver documents (b) tender through customary banking channels is sufficient and dishonor of a draft accompanying the documents constitutes non-acceptance or rejection.

By failure to disclose whom the true lender was upon this contract, BofA acted in bad faith which under UCC § 2-506 revokes their alleged and or implied securitization rights to these properties

Under UCC § 2-508 no offer to cure this improper net advance was made, under the pooling and servicing within a “reasonable” or “seasonable” time, these bearer notes became nothing more than voidable promissory notes where monies have yet to be lent to the consumer.

Where MERS acted as a nominee trustee unequivocally was breached upon inception, in this instance elaborated herein, and in accordance with UCC § 2-510 (1) Where a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance.

The question to both MERS, Bank of America, and HSBC and The Mortgage loan trust acting foreclosing attorney, becomes who exactly is the beneficiary here, and who is the entity moving to issue a 1099-A for Abandonment of Property, which is the ONLY way they can transfer a property into the SPV - when it becomes an REO, so they can avoid the issue of violating the taxed exempt status of the SPV under IRC 860.

Mers capacity is that of a 1031 like for like exchange platform which allows their MERSCORP members the ability to swap out the investors for use in the collatorolization process.

The Net advance can be seen on page one of the Deed of Trust, Note: The MERS MIN# or Member Identification Number. The Trust Deed references a MIN# where the first series of numbers identifies the MERS member who is supposed to be the Lender is actually Bank acting as the originator for a classification REMIC under a Mortgage loan trust, this is undisclosed in the contract itself.

The second series reflects a separate number that would appear to indicate the actual net advance tandem funded CDO (collatotolized debt obligation) that originator brokered/borrowed to fund the transaction. This number should be the actual loan number IF they were actually using their own funds. So what are looking at is a MERS witnessed land alienation bearer note upon inception that “siesed” a freehold interest in the estate and not the land. Now this contract fails as a substance for substance contract therefore it is a legal impossibility for the true creditor to actually foreclose there is no way that Quality loan services could set conditions precent to enact this foreclosure as consumption of the contract never took place.The contract states that “MERS” is a separate corporation and is a Nominee beneficiary. The contract further states that “MERS” is also the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc”. MERS does not exist as a separate company registered to do business in the State of Washington. MERS is the trademark “system” of MERSCORP.

The first entity organized as MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS I) was registered with the State of Delaware Division of Corporations in 1995 as File No. 2543543. It no longer existed after the name change to MERSCORP, Inc. as of 1/1/1999.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is abbreviated as “MERS,” but the only “MERS” in existence in 1999 was the “bankruptcy-remote,” name-only, shell corporation designated as MERS III. 2010 Deposition of William Hultman at T. 24:22-T:25-4 in April 7, 2010. MERS III, as a “bankruptcy remote,” Shell Corporation with no employees and, therefore, no human intelligence, and having no “members,” is legally incapable of acting as an agent or a “common agent” for members of MERSCORP.

In August, the Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on the role of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) in Washington’s non-judicial foreclosure process, holding that MERS does not meet the definition of “beneficiary” in Washington’s Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”) RCW 61.24.005(2), because it does not hold promissory notes evidencing residential mortgage loans. Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Group, Inc., et al., 175 Wn.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34 (2012). A “system” is not a “beneficiary”. “likely they could - is a MOOT point here, as by title, they can’t.

There was never a constructive Notice of Default issued recorded on title as each NOD is on behalf of MERS and MERS per title and per the Feneral BK Courts is NOT the beneficiary, This is why it is necessary for them to produce the FORM 8594 allegedly filed with the IRS under 26 U.S. Code § 860G - 3 (A) (ii) by the classification REMIC as it would show the date it a Mortgage Loan Trust purchased the asset.

U.C.C.-ARTICLE 3 §3-302 (a)(1) defines a Holder in Due Course as the holder of an instrument if:

(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alterations or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; which is why you call to question its authenticity, issued Notice of Error and issued a notice to cancel… This is why these classification REMICS need to cough up true sales to be able to establish color of title. It would appear by this recordation that color has been breached as a “servicer” is as the name implies, a “servicer” services the loan, they cannot hold a legal interest in the property. That is presumption of law. That Title transfer would have had to been a Corporation transfer to Bank of America “the creditor”.

If you have a belated deed transfer that witness a net advance through the use of the MERS system , (NOTE: the Deed transfer does NOT reflect a Cooperation Deed Transfer that would establish a true sale) you would need to verify the exact Mortgage Loan Trust Classification REMIC this was allegedly transferred back into AND you would have to verify that the Classification REMIC or REMIC I was not swapped out then terminated on the SEC.

You would also need to establish True Sales into the REMIC and you would have to show proof of the recall of the Deed of Trust prior to the REMIC being swapped out into another investment conduit. The easiest way to determine if a loan has been properly meet securitization requirements under 17 CFR 339.11 as required by the SEC to be a legitimate security instrument would be to cough up Production of the FORM 8594 allegedly filed with the IRS under 26 U.S. Code § 860G - 3 (A) (ii) which per the RIGHTS under the CFPB laws this falls directly under CFPB 12 CFR 1024.35(j). (11) Any other error relating to the servicing of a borrower's mortgage loan. See FHFA /FNMAE vs Deutsch bank et al - where the REMIC is listed on page 4 for FAILURE TO SECURITIZE THE INSTRUMENT.

Contracts use the word siesen for a reason… A freehold estate is conveyed to a person by fulfillment, with livery of seisin, or by any of those conveyances which derive their effect from the statute of uses, he acquires a seisin in deed or in fact, and a freehold in deed: but where the freehold comes to a person by act of law, as by descent or in this case under the bonding of the asset for collatorilization purposes, he only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right of possession, or in this case, a right to use the estate for a specific purpose, is called a freehold In law. and a freehold interest in the bonding instrument is not a fee simple conveyance – its segregation of land, thus the no mention of mortgage on the contract etc etc,,, This is what falls smak into your Due Process clause under the constitution, articles 5 and 14.

Therefore what we are discussing here in actuality is a freehold in law, which in turn means they have to adhere to the law under which they they created the freehold in the first place, in this case, its through the use of a classification REMIC under a mortgage loan trust, which falls under under IRS Code §860D as a special purpose vehicle ,once declared as such (as declared so in their P&S) retains that status permanently and if challenged to the validity of its SPV purpose would have to be resolved under the same code by their own pooling and servicing agreements the asserted this through, otherwise they would not state it as such within them.

he VERY FACT this assignment exists on title places both these company in violation of 15 U.S. Code § 1641 (b) compliance with statutory provisions. Any consumer who has the right to rescind a transaction under section 1635 (d) of this title may rescind the transaction as against any assignee of the obligation. In accordance to 12 CFR 1024.35(a) rescinded this loan along with any alleged security interest, making it void ab initio and turning this into nothing more than an unsecured promissory note. In my case, a federally discharged unsecure promissory note.

YOU hold the ability to repurchase the freehold interest from the amount MERS witness title being paid down to. -ZERO- FUTHER When a reversionary interest comes forth to assert their claim in the repurchasing of the granted freehold estate THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OWES A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE IRS AS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO REPORT SUCH MATTERS…HOW TO SPOT A Defective contract…. The actual section may vary, but the verbiage is all very similar once you know what you are looking for.

Page 3 of 8 (R) “Successor in Interest of Borrower” means any party that has taken title to the Property, whether or not that party has assumed Borrower’s obligations under the Note and/or this Security Instrument.

Section (R) IS a trigger for a 12-month loan.This allows the MERS jumping in and out onto the property without assuming the “Borrower’s” obligations. This verbiage is not meant for the presumed “Borrower/signer” or the “Presumed loan/lender”. Contact continues… (Starting at Definitions Section G) “Property” means the property that is described below under the heading “Transfer of Rights in the Property” continued… TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY The beneficiary of the Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS. This security instrument of secures the Lender (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extension and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of the Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with the power of sale theBORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully siesed of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and covey the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record.

NOTE: the spelling of the word “seised”

Where a freehold estate is conveyed to a person by fulfillment, with livery of seisin, or by any of those conveyances which derive their effect from the statute of uses, he acquires a seisin in deed or in fact, and a freehold in deed: but where the freehold comes to a person by act of law, as by descent, he only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right of possession, and his estate is called a freehold In law.

They cannot legally hold a freehold upon a fee simple estate

NOTE: There is no Mortgage reference in the above statement.

A mortgage reference would need to be stated here under the refinance if the property was encumbered.

The verbiage of the BORROWERS COVENANTS states that the PROPERTY IS UNENCUMBERED. The BORROWER is not “The Borrower/contract signer” the “Borrower” is the MERSCORP member acting under the MERS “system” to “borrow” monies against Debtors “estate” because the “Property” itself has to remain “Unencumbered” in order to “back” REMIC I under their Mortgage Loan Trust in order for the “Holders” of the REMIC I to lay claims of “abandonment” in order to legally move the property from their accountings under REMIC II into a REO abandonment status under REMIC I.contract supports Collateralization NOT securitization, it is not legal theory, it is factual within the contracts obscured legal ease. Contract continues… TOGETHER WITH all the improvements now or hereafter erected on the property, and all easements, appurtenances, and fixtures now or hereafter a part of the property. All replacements and additions shall also be covered by this Security Instrument. All of the foregoing is referred to in this Security Instrument as the “Property.”

There is no mention of land specifically in the above statement, as a legal description of the entire property would be needed to validate this presumption. This is not a meats and bounds description, this describes improvements to the estate.

There are three types of Restrictions of which two of the three must be introduced into court to assist their justification of their decisionForfeiture is a grant, which states that the grantee forfeits the land if he makes a transfer

Promissory is a grant that has a covenant forbidding alienation.Remedy is either injunction or damages for breach of contract.Effect of Rule is the type of estate that was conveyed influences the effect of the rule.

ANY corporate deed transfer showing “Mortgage” crossed out on behalf of a REMIC (special purpose vehicle holding tax exemptions) is evidencing the alienation of the property.

For those of legal minds, this is a thing of beauty. Erickson vs GreenTreeThe question asked Arizona Federal Court was is there a case or statue under which MERS could be beneficiary of a deed of trust? The answer is no. Faith is busily working on exposing corrupt judges in the Riverside County so bear with her for her next book release on how to beat the banks at their own game…

Class action in BK, the new reality click here how to use Chapter 13 to your benefit. CASES ARE FINALLY BEATING THE DEMURRERS 12/11/2014

Peterson vs Bank of America This case will move to jury trial and or sanctions and outlines the premeditation of the Mortgage Crash. Legal Advocacy groups across this Nation are fighting back, and you can too.

This filing is however a thing of beauty and will of course be incorporated to help refine ours. The only thing he misses is that these loans were bifurcated upon inception and used to offer certificates back to investors on the RIGGED LIBOR INDEX. The MERS-LPS Racketeering Enterprise”: Harkey V. US Bank Et Al

Hey guess what MERS your losing California.. Click here to read more…CA residents click here to learn which CA civil codes you need to fight back with.For immediate affordable foreclosure, eviction or pre legal defense click here and select FAITH Brashear under advocate referral source. For information on how to join a legal action RICO suit contact us at RICO@Betterquest.com and we will direct you to our legal advocates. Betterquest is not affiliated with these service’s we are only advocates to assist you with your options and your rights to home ownership.

The Analysis is specifically designed to assist you in preparing a legal case which you can have reviewed by your attorney or set up as a pro per filing by a non affiliated attorney. Side effects from these services have been foreclosure reversals, aids for loan modifications and settlements for wrongful foreclosures. Results will vary, and there are no guarantees. These are services designed as a fighting chance. Follow the steps listed on the right to help strengthen your defense. Gain your standing to fight back!

Well, according to the American Securitization Forum, if you hold a mortgage and your servicer decides to file a complaint under this act, you are, and they are out to smite you. The American Securitization Forum allows participants in the U.S. securitization market to advocate their common interests on legal, regulatory and market practice issues. And they clearly have their best interest at heart with this one.

What this Act means if it is allowed to be fine tuned and passes, is that advocacy groups will be cut off from their agreements because they will no longer have to hold the banks to their loan modifications agreements, this act destroys those agreements because within it, the servicer does not have to honor any loan modification efforts regardless if they are in good standing. They can call the note on the original terms and agreements, retroactively.

Let me say it again, in case you missed it the first time. This act applies for any reason you as a home owner are deemed a “blight” by the banks who can just take your Home when and if they feel like it regardless if you are current or in distress just by filling a “blight” complaint and giving you a 30 day notice. They do not have to prove they are a holder in due course, they do not have a transparent chain of title, nor will it matter that these loans were used in pools of trusts offered to investors under the rigged LIBOR index where the banks performed swap outs on these trust under the rigged ISDAfixed index.

This is not about religion, or political right or left’s, this is about right and wrong. Crime does not discriminate nor should this walk be placed into a category. You need to ask yourself, how much do you love you home, because you are next in this agenda.

They are trying to amend the Articles of the Uniform Commercial Codes where it essentially reads that for any "blighted property” any "assigned creditor" may perform any of its duties under this [act] through a servicer. It modifies UCC § 1-202 “the notice they give” this Section omits the § 1-1 103(b) reference to “the law merchant” on the basis that such principles are not likely to apply to “their” subject matter. There is a broad definition of what a “blight” actually is and it literally destroys “substance for substance”under common laws. This is a direct assault on our Constitutional rights of due process. The Law Merchant was indispensable to the Commercial Revolution. Besides providing rules for international commerce, it gave birth to negotiable credit instruments, such as promissory notes and bills of exchange, which are critical to modern trade.

Witness first hand the rigging of laws to cover up the rigging of our Worlds Currency to make an electronic racketeering system who assigns of over 20,000 "Certifying Officers” aka the Banking industry representatives the poster child for the new UCC central uniformed “Enterprise”.

Read between the lines, MERS IS the MERS System, and they are trying to make this system legal by the use of this act.

It allows the servicer to charge pretty much whatever fees they wish to collect off the CDO’s and FDIC insurance after they give their 30 day notice and foreclose. There is no fighting against it, or due process to stop it. It removes the right to loan modifications calling out the original terms of the predatory loans. This is being done for the purpose of covering up the Electronic Racketeering System currently in place by making it legal for the banks to take your property for any reason they see fit.

8 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy... in essence If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to take by force (which includes by abuse of government authority in the attempt to rewrite the laws) for the purpose to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof. This is what is happening here, and this understanding came at great personal expense of advocates in the field including enduring direct threats against their well being. Want to get a better understanding of all this? Click here.How the banks set you up for quicker foreclosure turn arounds, these “MANUALS” are issued to “BANKSTER” assigned attorneys and are a step by step handbook on how to “TAKE YOU DOWN” (the Homeowner)

LOOK AT IT! Livid is an understatement. These “Guide books” on how to kick a homeowner out of their home EXISTS and are being circulated, complete with “TA DA” documentation to help expedite the process. The very existence of these books means that there is no such thing as ruling on the “merits” of a case, it is who can circumnavigate the law more efficiently.

WE THE PEOPLE of this great nation, are not going to take this anymore!

2014 The Civil Rico suit is in review “We the Plaintiffs” in uniform against MERS et al... This is not a joke, ready my book Defrauded Nations to understand the levity of this situation you are in. THE ONLY WAY proud members of “We the People” are going to see anything resolved is if we come together. Left to the Government WE GET NOTHING. This settlement will only keep the current loans in circulation so that they can “season” for the purpose of future foreclosures to receive the payouts and take our homes.

This is what it costs to manipulate the value of our NATIONS currency, a 12 Billion payout to the Government, and continued illegal foreclosures. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. it will not resolve the issues at hand, instead all it does is gives a payout to the Government to keep these illegal loans in the system until they can be pushed to foreclosure for another payout to the bank who recoups their losses. The last form of Government assistance came from the “Independent Mortgage review” where DEFRAUDED homeowners got payouts of $300-$500 when they were rapped for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. THIS ENDS NOW!

Standing up for what you believe in takes FAITH. Faith is Unity, and through FAITH all things are possible.

2014 SUBMITTED TO THE CFPB - Civil Complaint et al addressed to the President of the United States, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director, The US Comptroller General, The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the State Attorney Generals. This is a 39 page pre-legal summary of what really went down in the industry and just how far these agencies will go to suppress this information.

The jest of this complaint outlines documentation that show how the banks used your signature to perpetuate frauds. The laws are not being followed in the courts under Article 9. Laws are being changed to allow cover ups at national levels. The rigged Libor index is what they used to offer certificates to investors out of trusts created to place pooled loans into both "normal" and predatory. The pooled loans were never by the lender funds, it was these funds of these investor of certificates issued through the Trust funds these loans were pooled into.

What the banks did was pass through the funds and used the promissory notes as bearer notes upon the lenders credit. The lender sold the note to the trusts prior to recording the document creating bifurcation upon inception. What this means is that it separated your Deed and Note from ever being able to transfer home ownership back to you, meaning you signed an elaborate rental agreement. They then used the signature of the American people to perpetuate fraud. In the manner this “Scheme” was set up, the consumer signed away their rights to own their home, even after they made all their payments.

The banks pushed loans they knew would default so they could collect the insurance funds against the trusts while telling their investors of these Mortgage Backed Certificates (they never backed), that should a default occur the investors would get to write off the “certificate debt”. Deeds were not transferred into these trusts n upwards of 3-6 years later. So trust deeds were never transferred with the note as required by law. They only did this to create the “illusion” of a proper foreclosure. At the time of the mortgage crises, in upwards of 60% or more loans were high risk, predatory loans designed to default upon inception.

Government amended article 9 to allow blank endorsements and pooling timelines for transfers being made beyond the 60/90 days be "legal" via winks and nods. Now FRPTA laws are being repealed.

What you need to realize as a defrauded consumer, is that the mortgage crises was premeditated. Countrywide you know as the fraud nasty right? What many people realize is that they used BofA's subsidiary Recon Trust as trustees prior to the merger. Meaning it made the merger "smoother”because they knew the Government would step in, which they did via TARP funds. This essential gave them a write off through merger and profits in upwards of 43000% return on their merger investment.

You need to understand, that we are being positioned as a Nation as “bankrupt”. Yuan Clearing houses are already being set up to convert the US dollar with the collaboration of our US treasury and JP Morgan chase. The first Beta testing through the bankruptcy courts is ResCap with 51 lenders selling off to Warren Buffets company. If they succeed, it means homeowners will become bankruptcy remote. Meaning you cannot challenge your ownership of your home in a court of law, as you will not have discovery of these frauds.

The second series of MIN# on a MER’s passthrough should be your actual loan number you agreed to. It is not, and this is why it is not. You signed a bearer note into existence prior to your loan recording on title. This is bifurcation upon inception, it removes you from your deed and they are re-writing the Articles put in place to protect you against these frauds. Once a BK remote is acknowledged by the courts it is only a few more steps out from proving that your promissory note was ever connected to your deed. Do the research, my book will help you understand so that you can determine for yourself what the text written in my book smells like.

For those of you who cannot afford legal help, as long as you read the Government Imposed Disclosures as I am not an Attorney and I cannot give legal advice, you can access it though the back door link to the side.

We are currently in the process of Organizing a Pro-Per Civil RICO suit the likes that none have seen before in the History of mankind. Click on on Operation Restoration to find out more! If you want your own copy I have reduced the price significantly to make it affordable to everyone.

Who Am I? I am a PROUD MEMBER OF“WE THE PEOPLE”(Because technically I am not an “American citizen” under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which gave Congress,the legislative branch of the three branch government, exclusive rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia, containing a body of people. I am but amongst the National Citizenry of Continental United States, and I am a non-resident alien to the Federal United States. So when I say I am a Proud Member of “We the People” I am referring to the preservations of US Constitutional rights that enable us to form a more perfect union, establish justice and provide for the common defense while promoting the general welfare. Spread the Word…We are not going to take this anymore!